PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 6503746

Evaluation and consequences of teaching competence: Scandinavian developments.

Abstract

Provision of health care, research and teaching are three major activities common to all medical schools. In spite of the fact that most medical schools emphasize the importance of basic education in their programme, both teachers and students point out that in reality teaching ability and experience are of little significance when academic positions are filled. A common objection to attaching a higher value to teaching competence is that teaching skills cannot be systematically and reliably evaluated. However, experience throughout the world shows that there are various methods of evaluating and considering teaching ability. Activities initiated in Scandinavia highlight concrete methods of considering the qualitative aspects of teaching skills with the basic point of view that there are great similarities between the processes of evaluating scientific and teaching competence. In this article the results of a survey of medical schools in Scandinavia on the relative importance of scientific and teaching merit are reported. Subsequent developments are provided from a task force working under the auspices of the Nordic Federation for Medical Education as well as from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. Suggestions are included for evaluation of teaching skills, including qualitative and subjective considerations. Arguments for increasing the value accorded to such skills are advanced and discussed.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Mårtenson, J Nystrup. 1984. Evaluation and consequences of teaching competence: Scandinavian developments.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1984.tb01293.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗